Standard echocardiography versus handheld echocardiography for the detection of subclinical rheumatic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the accuracy of handheld echocardiography (HAND) which, if shown to be sufficiently similar to that of standard echocardiography (STAND), could usher in a new age of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) screening in endemic areas. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, EBSCOHost and ISI Web of Science were initially searched on 27 September 2017 and again on 3 March 2020 for studies published from 2012 onwards. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies assessing the accuracy of HAND compared with STAND when performed by an experienced cardiologist in conjunction with the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria among populations of children and adolescents living in endemic areas were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies against review-specific Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 criteria. A meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was conducted to produce summary results of sensitivity and specificity. Forest plots and scatter plots in receiver operating characteristic space in combination with subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity. Publication bias was not investigated. RESULTS: Six studies (N=4208) were included in the analysis. For any RHD detection, the pooled results from six studies were as follows: sensitivity: 81.56% (95% CI 76.52% to 86.61%) and specificity: 89.75% (84.48% to 95.01%). Meta-analytical results from five of the six included studies were as follows: sensitivity: 91.06% (80.46% to 100%) and specificity: 91.96% (85.57% to 98.36%) for the detection of definite RHD only and sensitivity: 62.01% (31.80% to 92.22%) and specificity: 82.33% (65.15% to 99.52%) for the detection of borderline RHD only. CONCLUSIONS: HAND displayed good accuracy for detecting definite RHD only and modest accuracy for detecting any RHD but demonstrated poor accuracy for the detection of borderline RHD alone. Findings from this review provide some evidence for the potential of HAND to increase access to echocardiographic screening for RHD in resource-limited and remote settings; however, further research into feasibility and cost-effectiveness of wide-scale screening is still needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016051261.

Task Sharing in the Diagnosis, Prevention, and Management of Rheumatic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Globally, rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is a major contributor to the burden of cardiovascular disease. Major gaps in RHD prevention and treatment have been documented at all levels of health systems in low- and middle-income countries. Task sharing is an approach that could prove effective in remediating bottlenecks in RHD-related care. OBJECTIVES: This study conducted a systematic review to assess the state of the evidence for the use of task sharing in the diagnosis, prevention, and management of RHD. METHODS: Guided by a previously published protocol, we searched various databases using a systematic search strategy including MeSH and free-text terms for (1) group A streptococcus, acute rheumatic fever, and RHD and (2) strategies of task sharing in limited-resource settings. Two investigators independently screened the search outputs, selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias, resolving discrepancies by discussion and consensus. RESULTS: The publications search yielded 212 records, of which 18 articles were deemed as potentially eligible for inclusion. None of the studies, however, met with the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence for the use of task-sharing approaches in scaling up RHD prevention and treatment services in limited-resource settings. Considering the persistent burden of group A streptococcus, acute rheumatic fever, and RHD in low- and middle-income countries, this work highlights the urgent need to develop and test models of RHD-related care utilizing an evidence-based approach to task sharing. [Task Sharing in the Diagnosis, Prevention, and Management of Rheumatic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review; CRD42017072989].

Digoxin and clinical outcomes in the Global Rheumatic Heart Disease Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Digoxin is widely used in patients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) despite a lack of data on its impact on clinical outcomes. We aimed to determine the association of digoxin use on clinical outcomes in patients with RHD. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the association of digoxin use with mortality at 2 years in a large RHD registry. Secondary outcomes were recurrent heart failure (HF) and hospitalisation for any cause. We assessed associations using multivariable logistic regression in the entire cohort and in subgroups of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and HF. We also estimated average treatment effects from propensity-adjusted analyses using inverse probability treatment weighting. RESULTS: Information on digoxin use at baseline was available for 98.7% (3298/3343) of patients. In the overall population, digoxin was significantly associated with mortality (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04, p<0.0001) and recurrent HF (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.04, p=0.019). On propensity-weighted analyses, this effect was markedly attenuated (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09, p=0.005). Patients in sinus rhythm without HF had a higher propensity-adjusted odds of death with digoxin use (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12, p=0.015), but those with both AF and HF had lower mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, p=0.019). CONCLUSION: Digoxin use is associated with higher mortality in patients with RHD, but this is greatly attenuated on propensity adjustment, indicating the presence of substantial treatment bias. The adjusted estimates may therefore not be reliable, and large randomised trials are needed to determine the true effect of digoxin in patients with RHD.

Is the introduction of violence and injury observatories associated with a reduction of violence in adult populations? Rationale and protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The violence and injury observatories developed in Colombia and found throughout the Americas and Western Europe aim to maximise inter-institutional cooperation, information-sharing, analysis and security policy development initiatives to enhance governance. The purpose of the violence and injury observatories is directed towards preventing crime and violence at the local and regional levels. To date, there has been no systematic review of the literature to present a succinct review of the evidence. We therefore sought to summarise the evidence from existing studies on the contribution of violence and injury observatories towards violence prevention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A number of databases will be searched, supplemented by the same keyword searches in the grey literature. Search terms will include studies published from 1 January 1990 to 30 October 2014. Study quality will be assessed using a validated quality assessment tool. Two researchers will independently assess articles for study eligibility to reduce bias, minimise errors and enhance the reliability of findings. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus among three authors. This review protocol has been published in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of systematic reviews, registration number 2014:CRD42014009818. DISSEMINATION: There is a paucity of evidence for the effectiveness of violence and injury observatories and their influence on violence in an adult population. We plan to address this gap in knowledge by way of a systematic review and meta-analysis outlined in this abstract. We anticipate that the results could be used by researchers and policymakers to help inform them of the efficacy of violence and injury observatories and their broader role in contributing to violence prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014009818.

N-acetylcysteine for non-paracetamol drug-induced liver injury: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) refers to acute or chronic liver injury that may occur as a consequence of using drugs and herbal or dietary supplements. Specific therapies for DILI are limited. There is considerable evidence for efficacy and safety of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in management of paracetamol-induced liver injury. More recently, research has explored the use of NAC in non-paracetamol drug-induced liver injury. It is important to summarise the evidence of NAC for non-paracetamol DILI to determine if NAC may be considered a therapeutic option in this condition. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a systematic review of the benefit and harm of NAC in non-paracetamol drug-induced liver injury. Primary and secondary outcomes of interest are pre-specified. Primary outcomes include all-cause mortality, mortality due to DILI, time to normalisation of liver biochemistry (e.g. return of alanine transaminase to <100 U/l and/or international normalized ratio (INR) <1.5) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes include transplantation rate, time to transplantation, transplant-free survival and duration of hospitalisation. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies. RCTs will contribute to the evaluation of safety and efficacy of NAC, whereas, the cohort studies will contribute exclusively to the evaluation of safety. We will search several bibliographic databases (including PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL), grey literature sources, conference proceedings and ongoing trials. Following data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias, we will conduct a meta-analysis if feasible, as well as subgroup analyses. We will assess and explore clinical and statistical heterogeneity. DISCUSSION: The aim of this review is to provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of NAC in non-paracetamol DILI. We anticipate that the results could aid health care practitioners, researchers and policymakers in the decision-making regarding the use of NAC in patients with non-paracetamol DILI. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014008771.

Mobile phone text messaging for improving the uptake of vaccinations: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Low vaccine coverage is a major public health concern, the consequences of which contribute to around 1.5 million child deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases. Thus, innovative strategies to rapidly increase coverage and recall rates for vaccinations are urgently required. Mobile text messaging (or short messaging service, SMS) has the potential to help increase vaccination coverage and therefore we propose to conduct a review of the current best evidence for the use of SMS as an intervention to promote vaccination coverage. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This article describes the protocol for a systematic review of the effectiveness of SMS in improving the uptake of vaccination. Primary and secondary outcomes of interest are prespecified. We will preferably include randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, non-randomised studies (NRS) will be considered if there is an inadequate number of RCTs. We will search several bibliographic databases (eg,PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, Africa-Wide Information and WHOLIS electronic databases and search sources for grey literature. Following data extraction and assessment of risk of bias, we will meta-analyse studies and conduct subgroup analyses, according to intervention subtypes. We will assess clinical heterogeneity and statistical heterogeneity. For outcomes without quantitative data, a descriptive analysis will be used. This review protocol is registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of systematic reviews, registration number 2014:CRD42014007531 ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics is not required for this study, given that this is a protocol for a systematic review, which uses published data. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. We anticipate that the results could be used by researchers and policymakers to help inform them of the efficacy of mobile phone text messaging interventions to promote increased vaccination coverage. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO registration number 2014:CRD42014007531.

Health education interventions to raise awareness of rheumatic fever: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is a significant global health burden associated with acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD), especially in developing countries. ARF and RHD most often strike children and young adults living in impoverished settings, where unhygienic conditions and lack of awareness and knowledge of streptococcal infection progression are common. Secondary prophylactic measures have been recommended in the past, but primary prevention measures have been gaining more attention from researchers frustrated by the perpetual prevalence of ARF and RHD in developing countries. Health education aims to empower people to take responsibility for their own well-being by gaining control over the underlying factors that influence health. We therefore conducted a review of the current best evidence for the use of health education interventions to increase awareness and knowledge of streptococcal pharyngitis and ARF. METHODS AND DESIGN: This article describes the protocol for a systematic review of the effectiveness of health education interventions aimed at increasing awareness and knowledge of the symptoms, causes and consequences of streptococcal pharyngitis, rheumatic fever and/or rheumatic heart disease. Studies will be selected in which the effect of an intervention is compared with either a pre-intervention or a control, targeting all possible audience types. Primary and secondary outcomes of interest are pre-specified. Randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and controlled clinical trials will be considered. We will search several bibliographic databases (for example, PubMed, EMBASE, World Health Organization Library databases, Google Scholar) and search sources for gray literature. We will meta-analyze included studies. We will conduct subgroup analyses according to intervention subtypes: printed versus audiovisual and mass media versus training workshops. DISCUSSION: This review will provide evidence for the effectiveness of educational components in health promotion interventions in raising public awareness in regard to the symptoms, causes and consequences of streptococcal pharyngitis, ARF and/or RHD. Our results may provide guidance in the development of future intervention studies and programs.